Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:25 pm

139km/h In A 100km/h Zone Reduced To 129km/h

by: ListerStorm on

Hello there...

Please be kind as this is my first post.

I was charged back on Jan 2 of this year with speeding on the 407.

I was clocked, according to the OPP officer, at 139km/h and he reduced the charge to 129km/h.

Couple of quick questions.

1. On the offence notice the officer listed the offence location as Weston Road and 407. This is NOT where the officer was situated when he clocked me, he was actually situated at Keele Street and the 407 which is almost 5 KMs away. Weston Road is where I was finally pulled over.

2. I received my initial disclosure, or lack thereof, I received only one of the 7 or so things I requested.... The only thing I was given was a copy of the officer's notes as they pertained to my offence. The notes are incredibly vague. They contain no information about how he initially observed that my vehicle was speeding (no visual observation etc...), no information about any of the other vehicles around me ( I was in a loose pack with 3 other cars), no information about the weather, no information about the radar used, no information about testing the unit in general, nor testing the unit after he pulled me over ( in fact part of the officer notes contained information from the previous ticket he gave about 20 minutes earlier, and he never noted anything to do with testing the radar following that ticket either), bascially it states 139km/h clocked 129km/h reduced and that is ALL it states about the speeding. I was also charged with my plate being obstructed, but that's already taken car of.

3. I saw the officer as I came around the bend just before keele street on the 407 WB. The officer was using a handheld radar device, but as I passed the his vehicle, the car was parked at the side of the road, windows up, so I have to assume he used the gun from within the car...

My questions are straight forward

1. Should the location of the charge not be written where I was clocked, and not where I was pulled over. The two locations are QUITE different with regards to geographical features. The area he was set up at comes off a corner, uphill, and in a "valley" of sorts with large earthen walls on each side, and approaches an overpass (Keele Street). The area where I stopped is on a slide downgrade, 5 kms away, just beyond an on ramp with a concrete divider between the main highway lanes and the on ramp lanes. Could I not argue there is no speeding offence, since I was pulled over to the side of the road at Weston and therefore could not have been speeding?

2. Should the officer not have initially observed my "speeding" vehicle via "eyesight" and hen confirmed that via the Radar? Should this not be in his notes? SHould the testing of the radar unit not be part of his notes, especially since I requested that in disclosure? Should there not be reference to testing the unit following my stop? Can I safely object in court if the officer tries to bring up anything to do with testing, or sight observation if it is not in his notes. (When I wrote that line above 139km/h clocked 129km/h reduced, I meant that literally... that is ALL there is with regards to the speeding)

3. Is it common place for officers to use a handheld radar device from within a vehicle? with the windows up? it was -9degrees on that day...

This is not the first time I have been to court for various traffic offences... Last time was about 7 years ago for a non-speed related offence. I have read up on as much caselaw as I can and the various sites related to protocol within the provincial offences act and traffic court.

I plan on making a second request for disclosure on Thursday as the initial disclosure package was quite lacking. LOL. I was just curious as to the above mentioned information.

Thank you so much in advance. All anticipated help is greatly appreciated.


User avatar
Posts: 2934
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 am
Location: In YOUR rearview mirror!

Posting Awards


by: hwybear on

95% of the time radar is operated thru glass. The other 5% without glass would be on a motorcycle or nice day with a handheld.

Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer.
User avatar
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: somewhere in traffic


by: Reflections on

hwybear wrote:95% of the time radar is operated thru glass.

From the Tim Horton's lobby nearest you............."Si.,r, do yooou know why I p, *swallow*,ulled you over? "Those Boston Creme's are getting clumppier Al...............................", "Yes sir, you were speeding in the parking lot", "Al, my.......*chew,chew,chew* Cafe Mocha, please" :D :D :D :D :D :D OR
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:23 pm

by: liveontheedge on

1. Use this to your advantage when cross-examine the cop on the witness stand ie to discredit him in terms memory recollection of the event, if he slacked off on detail notes for his own reason it might back fire on him.

2. Again use lack of notes on procedure to your advantage. No visual estimation of speed, no note of testing before and after the stop can be interpret that he had no visual estimate and did not do the tests.

3. Shooting thru glass? is it recommended anywhere in the user manual? you may want to check that out and raise it as resonable doubt.

I would ask a lot of questions about details of location, discredit the cop in terms of independent recollection of the incident. Therefore if he claims that he remembers testing the radar, the visual estimate, the correct location, it will create resonable doubt about his memory in JP's mind.

Post a Reply
  • Similar Topics

Return to “Exceeding the speed limit by 30 to 49 km/h”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest